and his operations chief lied. they lied to the cuban exiles saying if you kauais get in trouble -- guys get in trouble on the beach, we're coming in with everything we've got. we're going the take that island. and this is just sort of a detonator cap. ..

aha kennedy meets kruschev after the bay of pigs and he is thinking i can take this kid and brutalized kennedy. >> guest: and said i told him there would be seventy million people killed in nuclear war and kruschev said what else is new? we had wars. here's another one. could leave it. he never met a person who thought nuclear war which is another escalated battle, another tougher battle. that would shake anyone. he came back with that. i met a man who is willing to face nuclear war over berlin. ike had come back and said you should have stood up to him and kept brinksmanship. i had the upper hand. by early 60s, you read a manifesto out of kruschev's mouth you wouldn't be messing

with him. we were headed toward the moon, there were feeling their oats. they wanted a fight and were ready to fight. that was different. you had to be careful with the russians about berlin because kennedy had promised the german-american community in 60 that berlin was worth nuclear war. it was easy to say that to fight a nuclear war over berlin. in an end he didn't want to fight a nuclear war. he wanted to avoid nuclear war. >> host: august of 61 kruschev spend every message possible we're going to abrogate, normalized -- >> guest: recognize -- >> host: and all that. here comes the wall. >> guest: battery wall than a war. and he is a real critical. >> host: he has written a book called berlin 61 in which he tries to make the case that was rolled by kruschev once again that we should have knocked down

that wall. >> guest: the consequences. we watch this presidential election we are watching right now. the most important question to ask whether we allow the israelis to bomb iran, what is the second step? this is the way kennedy looked at this over berlin. we had 15,000 combined nato forces. guess how many russians? 350,000. we would have the first shoot. demanded a role toward the tanks into berlin we would have a choice. given west berlin in a matter of hours which would have been horrific for europe or go to a first used to stop them in their tracks. kennedy said i am not going to that step because that step is horrible. it puts us in a position of wanting a third world war. kennedy knew this. i see with a tremendous sense of command, just say no. that might work and it might not. as time went on it became more likely that it would work.

the russians knew we wouldn't use nuclear weapons. in the end we wouldn't use them. the goal was not to use nuclear weapons to defend europe. in the end wasn't really a good laugh. that is when kennedy realized it wasn't a good beloved. we would not blow up the world over this. he decided to do something about it and began to realize the best thing that ever happened was -- remember fulbright, chairman of the foreign relations committee said west berlin, the key signal to the russians, okay. we could live with that. still take west berlin. we still want west berlin. he signaled pretty clearly take what you have to take to protect your soviet realm. do what you have to do but no war. easy to anyone to argue we should have been tough but tough is not a metaphor. the consequences, we would have been better off with a nuclear war because outside of that the russians back down or we backed

down or neither side backs down. the fear kennedy got was -- world war 1, 2 and 3, each side does what it feels it has to do step-by-step you create a rube goldberg situation where both sides find themselves killing each other over something both sides didn't want to do. that is where presidents differ from historians. >> host: we will continue major points the little diversion to presentation. remember going to the news conference. think about asking a question in the state department auditorium. >> host: in the back of the room. we think about the wicked. this wasn't scripted. questions were used softball but not always. he couldn't have thought of answers in the time it took to get there. he had this kind of wit that

everyone -- you could your fingers lazing bread in the kitchen, something like that. >> guest: is rare to have a witty politician. they're not very funny. clinton wasn't funny, wasn't witty. stevenson was funny. he was witty. steve mccarthy to his regret probably. politicians try to avoid being urbane. to beat urbane is to be elitist but the background with his wit didn't seem to be too urbane but it was fine. it wasn't clunky. those press conferences were a tree and they went on in prime time because even in those days with paul kennedy's of confidence going on at 9:00 at night with everybody watching, everyone watched more television in those days than they do now because there were only three channels but everyone watch those press conferences when they were on. it is one thing, one reason i wanted to write this book.

i can across someone named dick kurtz, probably a republican. most of those guys were. and won't talk about that. the pd boat strategy -- great strategy. we were stuck over there with no showers, the movies at the front and you talk to other guys and the other guys were willing to listen and laugh at your jokes, tell good stories. ahead to be good guys and they said kennedy was great company. that stirred me. here's a guy i want to write about. someone like winston churchill when they were drinking one night in the garden late into the night at the chimes of midnight. he said the later it got into the morning tomorrow churchill became churchill. that is what wanted to find. >> host: i am paraphrasing. you had to go for reelection at some point and someone asked a tough job as president, you recommend others try to be president?

he said yes, but not yet. >> guest: the timing and the sense of self deprecating, he was running at these working guys back in 46. they were all regular guys. they were way ahead of a carpetbagger who began to write his memoirs. he said they are telling a tough story and he finds this lean young rich kid. the only one who didn't work his way up the hard way. just laugh it off. at least he admits it. >> host: reminds me what reagan used to say. hard work never killed anybody but why take a chance? let's go to 1962. the bay of pigs, kruschev and berlin and whatever you think of those things. now we have a real problem. the 13 days in october after discovering that there are soviet missiles with nuclear warheads rapidly trying to be --

>> guest: 90 of them. intermediate range missiles that could reach new york easily. they were not defensive missiles. there were for real. >> host: everyone saying hit them. strike them. didn't happen that way. >> guest: kennedy wanted to strike in the beginning and later george bundy, wanted to level the country. they were all together. you see a good movie like 13 days which is an excellent film i think. >> host: directed by roger donald. >> guest: the scene where -- red-faced -- you are in a tough spot, we are in it together but he goes out of the room and you cut the rug out from under them. they were really determined to go and take those missiles out where they discovered them and also recognize you have -- you

got to knock out the aircraft installations and the ground does -- you have to do a full invasion. that was the plan. kennedy looking at that goes we have to kill on the way. turns out some of the things we didn't know. this is what i was able to discover which makes the case. looking at this material, what was excellent about this you reach different conclusions. if we had gone in, kruschev said -- he wrote in his memoirs had they attacked by missiles and had i had any left and by the way we can't get the mall to, if we go when we get x% but there will be 10% left for a third left that we can't get and they will fire them probably. what do we do? kennedy said of we are not going to allow the situation -- we have to attack them. the russians say any attack on any country in north america or

south america is an attack by the soviet union on us. [talking over each other] >> guest: requiring full response. what does that say? turns out kruschev was ready on his end to act. this is the scary part of any chain reaction. the word consequences has to be considered. how do you attack, kruschev setup i have many missiles left even a couple big ones, meaning intermediate range missiles i was going to hit new york. i might not have killed everybody in new york but a lot of millions of people enjoy america what it takes to fight a war on their territory. was not thinking of consequences. we would have had to strike and gone for the full strike. when kennedy was looking at a couple things, i don't want them to strike. of london to use their missiles on us. have to return the attack. he also wanted to deal with it in a way under cover so he did

two things. he set up the blockade. limit the immediate threat of action. called a quarantine. it was only about the missiles and material leading to the missiles and cut a secret deal with the soviet union. bobby went to see the soviet ambassador and the only thing different in the movie is he went and saw them at the embassy. at the justice department they came over and saw the pictures, body for the first time in his life, didn't start yelling about communism. we have to save this planet. it was a very human back and forth and the word got back to kruschev that although we couldn't publicly traded their missiles for our missiles that kennedy would remove the turkish jupiter missiles from turkey quietly in a couple months if they could keep this secret. was a combination of churchill and chamberlain that got us through it.

a tough stand and a secret collaboration. kennedy said i couldn't live with myself in history if i allow nuclear war to take place over turkish -- he was able to see the difference. >> host: we make a deal to save us from going into thermonuclear war. today you can't make a deal to keep the government open. >> guest: i think one really not to sell the book, useful tool, presidential elections should be about consequences. every time a journalist asks what do you do if and you say what would happen then and what you expect would happen then. what calculation have been made? i don't care what happens then, you should be president. you have to care what would happen. >> host: a president who knows how to play chess. five six we come to dallas or november 22nd. you think of wall acted alone? he was the sole sugar no question about it. that anything behind him?

>> guest: i don't know. i made a point in my book not to write about his name or even put his name in his boat. i won't even bring kennedy up to the edge. i took him in the car and -- jim wright gave me this information year ago on an early book. >> host: became speaker of the house. >> guest: kennedy gave that morning and this is the way life works. an end comes without knowing it. you know not the day or hour. [talking over each other] >> guest: kennedy getting up that morning saying we're going into net country. he knows he is going into hostile territory because the people in dallas staff on adlai stevenson legal have ambassador to the u.n.. papers were filled with horrible kennedy is a trader adds. nixon was there the night before saying kennedy will dumped johnson and put somebody else--just to taunt him. not a chance but -- kennedy was in texas because he pushed for

civil rights, cost himself any chance of getting mississippi or alabama. he was never going to get them. probably not south carolina. he was trying to hold on to texas and georgia. he is campaigning for money and reelection and as he is traveling from fort worth to the airport having had a good morning with union guys and good speech to the chamber he is talking to jim wright and john kyl and saying why is fort worth a good yellow dog democrat town and why is dallas right wing? what i like about my ability to get that is it shows jack kennedy chose a political career and was fighting and trying to be a good politician and get it done. the answer he got is a fascinating thing. jim wright blamed it all on the newspaper business. the media. the daily press owns the dallas morning news and just said this

anti kennedy message in the city of dallas. john connie was more shrewd. he said it dealt with the economy of the two cities. fort worth was the town of factory floors where people -- men and women worked next week the other in blue-collar blues plea for a working-class town. they would work in chorales and stockyards. regular people. dallas, high rises, insurance business, everyone wearing a white shirt to work and they want to work fairway to management level. they are thinking republican. guess who was like that? john conway began a republican. the other guy -- getting to the question of to what extent was the anti kennedy from the right environment of texas in those days over civil rights

primarily? that is what liberals tried to wrestle with. they feel atmospheric, toxic atmospheric anti civil-rights anti kennedy. getting killed by a guy who was infatuated with castro. didn't like what kennedy did in tampa. as long as castro is there nothing will happen and when he is not everything can happen. very anti-castro. lee harvey oswald went after everett walker, the right wing general and was going after nixon but he was in town. he had gone to the soviet embassy in mexico city and the cuban embassy the day before. all the information suggested he was a man to the hard left. a real anti-american communist infatuated no longer with the soviet union but castro. that is all we know. the latest books, all the books say single assassin. i can't get further than that.

>> host: you said at the outset that americans revere kennedy whether they knew him or not. he should be on mount rushmore. i think one of the reasons in addition to the case you made that kennedy was becoming a very strong president of the personal the assassination and the way jackie and the family everyone watching around. >> guest: it will lincolnesque. we remember the sound of it. when i was in the peace corps we got movies -- had to get movies where you get them to teach people. i would show years -- i would show about that day and you can hear the sound of the drum. and the saddle and the boots back word. i heard a story -- >> host: you can see john john and the salute. >> guest: jackie was practicing

the salute and wanted him to use it on veterans day at arlington. nixon going to the grave site. i heard this the other day. the broadcaster who was there, told me that night he was just a young guy at arlington and in the crowd he heard the shots of the final tribute and he saw nixon. there is a story. nixon that they fought it could have been him. >> host: 30 seconds. what is his place in history? >> guest: people think of him on mount rushmore the way they think of teddy roosevelt. not for his accomplishments but for the steering heroic life that led to the presidency. people want to be like that guy. i think americans want to be like jack kennedy. regular guy who liked girls and all that bad a guy who had guts and saved his crew in world war ii and saved us in the cuban

missile crisis. heroes to the occasion. we all hope our presidents can do that. some like nixon don't but when a president can rise to the occasion and be a better man as president than he ever was in life and is our dream. >> this morning on c-span2 a group of foreign policy analysts on the nuclear programs in iran and north corey and the threat of terrorist group getting its hands on nuclear materials. that is live on c-span2 at:00 a.m. eastern. >> army colonel chris toner spent the year in afghanistan where he oversaw two problemss of pakistan. he took questions yesterday for 40 minutes at the institute for the study of war in washington.

>> can what you achieved as the u.s. is cutting back on troops, by 5,075,000 and also just general war fatigue not only in washington but across the country. people don't care about afghanistan. they just want this war to be over. >> with full of a few separate questions here. why don't i asked you. the affiliated groups, while it has sanctuary inside of pakistan. >> i speak to the momentum i had as i left afghanistan and unequivocally the answer for me given the current situation and circumstances and the momentum eyes of building and the majority of the afghan national

security forces, the reinforcing that existed inkhost and paktia i say yes. for any insurgency to be successful you have to have popular support and some introduction of a conventional force at a culminating point. there is a group of folks out there who say maybe hiqani is just waiting for 2014. and as i was there, in paktia and posey, khost and paktia if he waits until 2014 the tidal wave of his forces, he will not

hit sandcastles, mortar and summoned in the form of afghan national security forces. i am a bit biased. the a and a brigade commander is arguably the best brigade commander in afghanistan. he was a tank commander with the impact team and when i got off the plane there he was. it was like old times again. he is a phenomenal officer that expects the same out of his subordinates and his soldiers and has a phenomenally competent fighting force and his concern and my concern are the same. with respect to the sustainability aspects, they can feed themselves no problem.

maintenance, repairing things, we focus a lot of energy and they got significantly better over time and he knows that is a place he has got to get focused. this is a largely competent force supported by afghan uniformed police. words will do no justice in the improvement of the afghan uniformed police in 2006-2007. in 2006 into thousand seven across-the-board nobody wanted the police in their villages. they would kill people. they would take from people. that has changed significantly. you have a professional police force which is the effort of the coalition over the last five years. this police force is phenomenal. they defeated -- we had four

spectacular attacks that occurred which fizzled out because the afghan uniform police disrupted them and kill the attackers and just a phenomenal force led by great fourth legal and large chief of police, very competent. the additional aspect of the post protection force that is largely a raid on the southern border of pakistan against infiltration routes. and something we haven't talked about is the afghan local police effort which is a success in paktia. does not exist in khost as i was leaving. there is a vision to get an sir and areas of khost as we free forces to do that but along the haqqani corridor in this

particular area, strong tribal network supportive of local police. so you have got that that is building and as i was leaving afghanistan, phenomenal. four brigade level operations in a coordinated and conducted on their own and to great success. them out front, us in support. in some cases we pull out the new workforces and just provide a cadre because they had the capability to address the enemy forces. over a 4,000 patrols in addition to the other patrol we did independent. we conducted 14,000 patrols, combined at every level. we never did anything independent. i wouldn't allow it. in addition to that 14,000 or so, there were 4500 patrol led by them.

some of these patrols were of great significance. ten tons of ammonium nitrate were captured by afghan uniform police elements that drew their own intelligence, used their own sources, watched the truck crossed the border, captured the truck and the two drivers. ten times. about 450, 50 count i edies on the battlefield. ieds on the battlefield. defeated by afghan uniform police valorous lee. afghan police leader ended the kills the man pulled out one of my soldiers who had been shot. as he was doing so he's was shot himself three times. another attempt against governor hamdark, great intelligence, the

potential to occur and the afghan uniform police killed all three before they could do anything. again, that would have been me in 2006-2007. that would have been me doing all that. so the phenomenal increase in capacity and capability of the afghan national security forces over a short period of time to level of competency that they can deal with in an insurgent based threat, as long as this momentum continues i am speaking from hindsight, january 4th, in khost, assuming that methodology continues, assuming open source, i am not in on anything other than that right now, the focus of our seat --rces at this time

is critically important. as i with leading khost paktia the intelligence we had that haqqani was suffering and resources was significant. there is comedy on the battlefield. there's a level of dysfunction and lack of tactical military expertise that we saw in khost and paktia that we have not seen previously. in large part because the leadership was killed or captured. >> terrific. right behind you, mark jacobson. >> mark jacobson. representative from afghanistan realize i was running around your territory in 2006. >> there were only a couple of you. >> good answer.

>> i agree with your assessment on breaking down the operational and technical capabilities of the haqqani network. there is no doubt of that. i am less convinced -- i am an optimist on afghanistan but i am less convinced we have been able to disrupt their ability to intimidate some of our weaknesses and the ability to help the afghan government and their ability to generate appropriate levels of rule of law to eliminate the drivers of the insurgency in terms of perceive disenfranchisement among different tribes. i was hoping you could expand on what you are seeing out there and secondly in terms of what was working in terms of the cooperation and the number one impediment? >> again, we have got to change the environment. it gets a lot to what you are

talking about. you tend to look at a guy like me wearing a uniform as a security guy and i'm all about kill and capture the enemy but i will tell you that when i say our campaign plan provided by general campbell first and soon by general allan, continuity of effort by the application of all elements across our lines of effort so the focus on the governance and the development and agriculture and security is it applies to the environment, changes the environment. i was not in all honesty of the leader of the rule of law. as a battalion commander coming out of -- work with me on this. don't leave me -- i am going to tie it in here -- battalion

commander coming out of paktia and understanding the culture pretty well i thought there is no way they're going to buy off on a judge and jury and will of wall. they are not going to let this off to anybody. a good friend of mine, gerald mark martin was running this program and pull me in as he does very well and puts his big arm around me and talks the through this and convinces me that get after it, figure this thing out. what i sought emerge in khost and paktia was this overwhelming well, they structured process of rule of law. in fact one of the number one requests as we traveled out to the districts is when at oxford -- when am i going to get the

judge out there to solve some of these issues. and haqqani realized that. there is this protective aspects. we don't want to send the judges out because of their living on the economy they will get killed. in large part the judges remain in khost city and they are doing trials and resulting in convictions and some of the numbers they throw at you, 51 trials in 11 months, 36 convictions may sound paltry but this never existed and there is this acceptance of the decision coming out of there that we saw. what was interesting to me as i traveled around the exterior is again that folks knew it and they wanted more of it. that is a key aspect of it. that haqqani realizes this is a

threat to him and we have a population out there that supports not will lead haqqani but other insurgent groups which the justice they bring. they do those kinds of things and so i think rightfully so, our leaders identified this as an issue we must address and in an immature stage i saw it take off significantly. one of our most successful programs was an internship program that we had with the university in khost and the university in haqqani when law students would work with the judges and the governor and do those kinds of things. just kick back off when we were over there and again another aspect from the community and

the knowledge that there is a source for solving issues that the government level. i don't know if i addressed -- so i am a believer. i didn't think -- if that can work, pretty phenomenal. >> thanks for your time today. a couple related questions. you talk about where they're coming from in the gulf, the level of support. have you seen when you were there any willingness whatsoever by the haqqanis to talk to the u.s. for the afghan government? any symbol that they would be willing to stop fighting at some point? >> i wish i knew but i don't.

there are folks looking at it way above me. there are efforts and methods to try to address that. i don't know. ice suspect -- i suspect that the facilities and processes that existed in the days of the soviet invasion, that particular area, probably still in place. i suspect. we would kill or capture folks and they would have large sums of pakistani money. towards the latter part of our

deployment we started to see old weaponry. ieds didn't change the method of placing them did. we had taken up the expertise. we started to seek old mortar systems, close rivals without tripods, comedy on the battlefield. shoot a rifle without a tripod. i am serious. complaints, intelligence was giving us complaints that they were having challenges getting basics, r p g warheads, sir we

mortar rounds. the indirect fire element that we face over a 12 month period of time decreased by 7%. 1 22s and close rifles fired -- 70%. to complain that, tier 1 and tier 2, instances and the equipment significant effect. they were at about 30% when we first came in largely in part to the efforts -- the surge that allowed them to do that. that decrease 11%. roughly 23% or 24%. to contrast that with what i saw

in 2006-2007, on january 10th, 2007. i remember that for obvious reasons. defeated them. i had platoons that getting contact with 56 people and they would maneuver. i never saw that during this tour at all. the most eyes are gathered at one place at one time on this battlefield, our great special operators supported -- destroyed that formation. the most i saw at anyone point in time was 13. remember the night that it happened. i would be happy to see that in 2006-2007. their focus in iraq. i am not concerned about the

sanctuary in pakistan. remember three elements. popular support and this aspect -- i put that in our camp. i put my support in the camp of the anssaf. there won't be takes running across the border. not in my mind. this aspect of sanctuary and the ability to recruit, frame, equip, prosecute operations does concern me. i will contrast that with 2006-2007. you all know this. there are predator operations at sanctuary when i was over there last time. we knew what was going on. that was it, at least me at my

level. this threat that is now opposed against haqqani, this aspect of the loss of leadership, the senior haqqani operational commander captured weather -- you have to ask one of the governor's what happened, right on the border. the intelligence we got was linked to someone we captured and trying to get in the spirit in 2006-2007 and we got him. one of these great night operation that resulted in no shots fired and pull off of the battlefield and provided a great deal of intelligence. it lead to the capture and killing of four deputies which even sir rated the haqqani operational capacity in terms of

command and control overnight. that is when the exodus occurred. that is one all the support commanders left and got out. >> do you think the haqqanis are reconcilable? have you seen any evidence? >> this is my personal view. i haven't seen any concrete evidence. can speak to any intelligence. my personal view is knowing the history of haqqani, knowing what he is trying to do, knowing the difference between the father and the suns, the funds are driving the operation and i don't think there reconciled. if you ask me, i don't think it is reconciled. i am not sure if they even

thought about doing it if they could. i really don't know what the relationship is in pakistan. i don't have any insights on that. i can only go back to the historical analysis of haqqani and the support they received during the soviet era and i am making the assumption. [inaudible] >> it is great to see the difference between 2006-2007 and now. it is my view that what the coalition has done is provide the political space for the government to extend its

governance into the region. it sounds like there is major progress on the part of the police and national governments. what is the next step? to solidify this means the government really needs to continue firming up its services in the provinces. what should we be doing? we being of the u.s. government and federal government in afghanistan to solidify what you gained already? >> i will speak to the campaign plan and where we are headed as i left? i thought we were in the right direction. it speaks partly to transition. i will start with what i will finish with. the afghans stand up and and it. at some point in time.

in regards to what we do and how long we stay committed and how much resources we put in at the end of the day they have to stand up. i never felt pressured to transition because it was time associated. to me it was always in my senior commanders as they talk to me and instructed me it was condition based. you see this move because those conditions we need to have will be achieved in the air base on focus down south and the level of achievement they have done down there. conditions based and it is a conversation. i was having this conversation with my governors. i was having this conversation with my afghan national security force leaders about where we think transition could occur in

khost and paktia. along three things. security and the -- government and development. your point about maturing the government to the point they can take this is absolutely spot on. the key component is a government that can provide basic needs and services to the people. more importantly whatever that is, the people feel that. okay? a lot of you have been over there before. it doesn't take a lot to influence a village in the main quote valley --mangal valley. different from the city with a pretty educated population. the high rises are going in. if you have not been back to khost take a look at it. it is an absolutely phenomenal growth and economic growth which shows confidence in what is

going on. talk about confidence, increase of children in schools who are over 300 and khost and paktia. our census takers said it increased by 30,000. seventeen to 20,000 of the 300 k at all levels. i see indicators of confidence but by no stretch of the imagination there's much more work to be done. there is again my opinion, there is a fragile psychological aspect that folks need to see more. they need to feel more comfortable about where their government is going and where their security forces are going over there. so the shift of resources focusing this conversation that

occurs with afghan national security force leaders on condition that need to be met with transition. at all levels, the afghan chief of staff -- .four .. >> all of them. >> when you get the microphone,

the next question. >> thank you. viola gingrich from bloomberg news. a couple of questions. one is how -- what is the coalition doing, if anything, to improve purity for local officials and the ansf and so forth or help them figure out ways to secure themselves considering that the militants seem to be aiming very largely toward the established, um, representatives of the nsf, the local officials as they've changed their tactics? and the other thing is in your joint special operations that you're doing with afghans, with afghan forces, how much do you have to factor in the risk of potentially tipping off the

enemy in advance in the planning stages or coming up to a raid? how much of a factor is that, how much distrust is there still between the forces? thank you. >> i'd like to hit that last one. you know, we, we -- in my outfit, um, you know, we had the kind of the same trust but verifiment -- verify. i was very open with the intelligence that i worked and jointly with my afghan brothers. now, i knew all the leaders, advantage of multiple tours to afghanistan. and i knew these men were men of character, and i knew i could trust them with, with the things that we were doing. we did watch to see if there were any indicators that op-sec was being violated, and in 12

months over there i had no indications that it was. and this includes sharing information with our governors who have a right to know. they're governors of province, they should understand what's going on with their security forces in their provinces. and so -- >> [inaudible] >> yes. yes. absolutely. in fact, it's a requirement. to include special operations raids. so, and i'll tell you, the reason why we do that, one is, they're the governors, they should know. two, if something bad happens, they're the guys that are going to help us solve the problem. and they did every time. in fact, you know, in four instances of civilian sawcialties on the battlefield regardless of what the situation was, the two golfs were the ones that, you know, carried the day. and with our support and working together in this mutual aspect of addressing tragic events

resulted in no significant issues, no, you know, issues in terms of dealing with the family, the population. in fact, i would tell you that the exact opposite occurred when haqqani killed civilians. demonstrations on the streets of host and gardez and an outward, you know, expression of no tolerance for civilian casualties. so we have -- you know, i did a bit of this when i was a battalion commander, too, i'll be honest with you. i had a great division commander, and he was all about being open and getting our afghan brothers up to speed in terms of intelligence gathering and everything else. during this tour over here what changed for me senately was the afghan -- significantly was the afghan human intelligent network. the nds folks routinely came in

with human intelligence that we subsequently confirmed through other means. they led us down that path. and as only afghans can do inside of their country. significant improvement in terms of intelligence capacity on a human side with the police and the nds. the thing that's bringing this all together is unlike 2006-2007 army hated the police, police hated the army if the police were even there. nobody trusted nds. and if you were, you know, woe be it if you were an afghan border policeman. okay? [laughter] so you had that kind of environment. and the environment that i came into in 2011, you know, our provincial coordination centers have matured. we started that back in 2007,

they have matured to the point now that you have senior representations from all of the afghan national security forces to include the nds and the governors' offices in a single coordination center. and it's, best description is it's like one of our tactical operations centers. they have all the communications devices, they have all the technology in there, and they're sharing and coordinating intelligence information. so when the nds guy walks in and goes, hey, national directorate of security, when he walks in and says, hey, one of our informants just told us that there's a vehicular-borne improvised explosive device that's moving frommer the psi, looks like they're going after the governor's compound in host, that starts a sequence of events. police now have it, afghan national security force has it, the general army representative,

brigadier general, he picks up the phone, he calls general that zero. instantaneously they're calling my headquarters. everybody -- it's very flat and pretty quick. and so we were getting this intelligence 24 hours ahead of time in most cases. 24 hours. which allowed us to posture, change checkpoints, redesign the battlefield. in some cases the attack didn't come up because we found out through intelligence it was completely disrupted, or in the case that i did occur, it was completely defeated. so we've just got to get past this aspect of not willing to share intelligence. and, again, in my outfit we were doing that. trust but verify, you know? and make sure that we're doing the right things. and your first question? >> security for the -- [inaudible] >> well, it's largely provided by the afghan uniform police in the case of the governors and the district subgovernors.

of course, you know, my charter to myself was don't get the governors killed because how are you going to replace them. and so i will tell you that i monitored that very closely. these are, you know, again, how do you replace these leaders? and that's why haqqani is trying to kill them. and so, you know, i didn't provide a contingent of american soldiers to protect the governor at his compound. i did monitor intelligence, i did support afghan national security forces in the conduct of operations. and, again, you know, i'm a little bit protective by nature, and i made sure i knew where the governors were going. and so that the haqqani didn't get an opportunity to kill one of them. >> colonel, we're running to the

end of our time, and i'd like to know if there is anything else that you'd like to say to sum up your experience and your thoughts about the future. >> well, first, you know, again, thanks for this opportunity to talk and, hopefully, i've provided you a little bit of insight. and it's only from my perspective. i can look back in 2006-2007, and if you were with me then and now, you can understand why i'm a bit of an optimist. what hasn't changed to me over that time is the, and i'd like to leave you with this, is the commitment of great afghan patriots. i've got to be careful because i'll get a little emotional when i talk about this. but i, i describe them as founding fathers of their country like our founding fathers. these are individuals that have put their lives at risk, fortune

for sure. in the case of governor naimi, that man could be making lots of money in a very benign environment somewhere in the world. and i'd say the last thing is more significant, is, um, their families. um, so it was often a challenge to watch them go off to their families in kabul or, you know, go have a vacation somewhere elsewhere they could be with their families and not place them at risk. okay? and so, um, that has continued over time. there's some financial individuals over -- phenomenal individuals over there, a lot of them, and they should be our story. and as i've been all over the battlefield, i've fought in helmand, khost and packty ya,

and another common aspect is the tribal elder that says we just want this war to be over, and we want to get on with our lives. and that's what they're after. but we've got to understand at great risk to not just themselves, but to their families. and so this is the most challenging combat environment in the world. and counterinsur general si -- counterinsurgency is the most challenging fight in the world. and there's one aspect of counterinsurgency that'll be the same, and it's been the same throughout history: time. it takes time. and patience. and i'm a realist. i understand that time is our enemy. but there are great folks over there. and if anybody can make it happen, they can make it happen. but at the end of the day, the afghans have to want it. and they have to stand up, and they have to take it. the last thing i would share with you is i would have a

conversation with the general or the governors, and i told them, you know, the strength of the united states wasn't the fact that we beat the british in the revolutionary war. it was the fact that we stayed together afterwards. and so my challenge to them was how are you going to unite afghanistan, because you are the guys that have to do it. because if, you know, history will tell us one thing. when afghans unite, look out. okay? and so my hope is and this great diversity that exists in their army, with, you know, tajiks fighting next to pashtuns fighting next to whomever, that that's going to spread throughout the country, and they're going to create this awesome environment that haqqani just can't do anything about. >> colonel toner, thank you so much for joining us at the institute for the study of war. for those of you who are interested in reading more about

afghanistan and in particular this area of afghanistan, i commend to you our web site, www.understandingwar.org. that's understandingwar.org. there you can find the paper on the haqqani network as well as other video tests from our field notes series. i would be remiss if i didn't end with extraordinary thanks and gratitude to colonel toner and to the great men and women of the third brigade combat team, first infantry division task force duke for tremendous work in changing afghanistan the make it possible for these great patriots, actually, to achieve their goals in an environment where they don't necessarily have all the capacity that they need to in order to make their

country succeed. you and your soldiers have done a tremendous job. i've seen it myself, and i really want to thank you. in the grand scheme of army traditions, we have for you an isw coin to thank you very much for joining us. [applause] have a wonderful day. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> you can watch the last few minutes of this online anytime at c-span.org. taking you live now to the national press club where we're going to be hearing about nuclear issues from foreign policy and nuclear proliferation specialists on preventing terrorism and global nuclear security. >> if there are opportunities to ask questions, we'll invite you to ask your questions. please, keep your questions brief and to the point. no speeches, please, so we can get in as many questions as time allows. everyone asking questions should, please, identify yourself and state the agency or organization you represent. before we begin i'd like to mention a few upcoming events at the club that may be of interest

to you. on may 9th, tennis great billie jean king will speak at a press club luncheon. again, please turn off all cell phones and electronic devices. today's panel will discuss global nuclear security and ways to prevent nuclear terrorism. topics which are relevant today given concerns about the future and nuclear ambitions of north korea and iran. our panelists today are on my immediate left, robert gallucci, president of the john d. and catherine t. mac arthur foundation. mr. gallucci served in government for 21 years including as a potential envoy to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and as assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs. on my immediate right is susan squassoni -- >> sharon. >> sharon, sorry.

sharon squaw sony, director and senior fellow at csis or the center for strategic and international studies. if you don't know what the acronym is. ms. squaw sony was a senior associate in the nuclear non-proliferation program at carnegie institute for international peace before joining csis. on my far left, is alexander glaser, assistant professor at princeton's woodrow wilson school of international and public affairs. professor glaser's work focuses on the technical aspects of nuclear fuel cycle technologies and policy questions related to nuclear energy and nuclear weapon proliferation. finally, on my far right is joseph cirincione, president of the plowshares fund, a global security foundation.

mr. cirincione is the author of "bomb scare: the history and future of nuclear weapons and deadly arsenals, nuclear, biological and chemical threats," and previously served as director for non-proliferation at the cashgy endowment -- carnegie endowment for international peace. the order in which the panelists were presented will be the order in which they speak, and after the last panelist has spoken, we'll open the floor for questions. mr. gallucci, you're up. >> thank you. thank you all for coming. thank the national press club for hosting us, and i want to say how pleased and honored i am to be on this panel with alex, sharon and joe. um, the subject of nuclear

security was the purpose of the meeting in seoul that the president traveled to. that's why he traveled all the way there, all the way back. he, like previous presidents and candidates for the presidency, have said that that issue is the most important national security issue to the united states of america, mainly the possibility that a terrorist group would acquire a nuclear weapon and detonate it in an american city. the single most important threat. that was the can conference, international conference, to deal with the single most important threat. it went almost entirely unnoticed even with the president traveling there. what got into the newspapers and was highlighted was an open mic incident. this is really sort of too bad but worse than too bad. what we have, i think, is not, um, a scenario or an idea that

just makes good television show, but a real world threat to this nation's security. it has been lost on me why so many people seem to take solace in the fact it hasn't happened yet. what i'd like to persuade you of is that we are living on borrowed time. it's a much better concept. and what i hope you know if you, as most people who do these kinds of calculations believe, that the magnitude of a threat to the united states is, has something to do with just what are the consequences and what are the, what's the probability of it happening. i'm going to try to persuade you the probability is nontrivial now and growing, and the consequences are extraordinary. think in terms of tens of thousands of people dying promptly in this city or another

american city, perhaps a lot more, maybe 100,000. the image i'm trying to create is of an improvised nuclear device. how could that happen? i'd like to persuade you that it would not be difficult except for one thing: getting the fissile material the make the weapon. the enemy is out there, the enemy is known to want terrorist fissile material to have the nuclear weapon to cause this destruction, and i'd like to persuade you that the other steps in the sequence of this scenario are not insurmountable for the dedicated terrorist. in other words, designing an improvised nuclear device, manufacturing an improvised nuclear device, delivering an improvised nuclear device not easy, but not overwhelming

obstacles. the thing that keeps us safe or will keep us safe is preventing the terrorists from getting the fissile material. focus your mind on fissile material. that's why the summit was nuclear security. the security of this material. i'd like you to think about a couple of scenarios under which a terrorist entity could get the fissile material. i find these plausible, and the way i would like this issue to be conceptualized. two ways simply: by the transfer of the material or by the theft of the material. by transfer i mean that some government decides that they will transfer the fissile material to a terrorist group. you may say that's the movie stuff again. i will say think again. 2007, what did you learn? what did we all learn? that north korea who we had asked is it possible they could ever sneak out a baseball-sized amount of plutonium which is all

it would take to destroy an american city, they not only got a baseball out, they built a plutonium production reactor in syria. think about that. they built a plutonium production reactor in the syria. what was that for? to produce plutonium. what for? one purpose, to make nuclear weapons. so do you think they could get a baseball out? do you think they would do it? i think the answer is, clearly, yes. the only reason that isn't pumping out plutonium now, five years later, is because of the israeli version of non-proliferation policy. take another case. take iran. i'm not going to talk about the iran case here except to make one point. everybody's focused on iran with nuclear weapons and what it means for stability in the middle east. it's all serious stuff, i take it seriously. but states with nuclear weapons are open to deterence.

iran is open to transfers to terrorist groups. once iran would have fissile material. again, prescription here for this case, that's another topic. i'm saying if you're going to look at these cases, the north korea case, the iran case, in addition to thinking about nuclear weapons and instability in northeast asia and the middle east, think about this issue, right? transfer. the second image i want you to have in this mind is theft, and three ways that happens. first way, where is most of the fissile material we worry about? i think, and alex will correct me if i get this wrong, russia is the answer. and an awful lot of material that is better secured now than it was 20 years ago thanks to cooperate i have threat -- cooperative threat reduction work, but not up to the

standards we would like. a concern, leakage out of russia. that is a not purposeful transfer. second, pakistan. not only is there a lot of plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, but it's growing. and the kinds of weapons their making and delivery systems, it's growing. again, not up to the standards of security we would like, never mind the fact that we don't like the fact that it's growing and building weapons, but access to the material is something we worry about. russia, pakistan. and the third case i want you to have in mind is any country that adopts the use of plutonium as a fuel now or in the future. if you have large flows from large throughput reprocessing facilities taking spent fuel and extracting plutonium -- and i don't care the chemical process -- and then end up with some type of mixed-oxide fuel, i do believe we're making this threat substantially worse.

so prescription and then i'm done, let's first secure the material that's there. grahammalson talks about to the gold standard. i'll accept that. secure it to a high standard. then get rid of it. if it's highly-enriched uranium, blend it down and use it low-enriched uranium fuel. we do that. do it more. plutonium, either burn it -- not my favorite option, but better than stockpiling -- or treat it as radioactive waste and dispose of it. and finally, a bit of prescription. there's a prescription one has heard when you're in a hole, first, stop digging. so the prescription is simple. it would be for all countries, all countries to forsake any

future production of separated plutonium or highly-enriched uranium for any purpose whatsoever. that means no blew plutonium usn the current generation of thermal reactors, no accumulation or separation of plutonium for future fast reactors, no reprocessing of spent fuel for radioactive waste management. none. no research reactor fuel with highly-enriched uranium for radio isotope production, no naval reactors fueled by highly-enriched uranium or additional highly-enriched uranium. end it. the proposition here is that if we are serious about this being the greatest threat to the national security, let's act as though it were. thank you.

>> thank you, good morning. i'm going to switch gears here a little bit and talk about the seoul nuclear security summit and provide some general and specific comments and then, also, some observations. in essence, seoul was about president obama passing the baton on nuclear security. did that work? let me give you a qualified, yes. yes because seoul got countries there, pulled it off as an event, and there was strong support for this process. and it's important not to underestimate this for two reasons. one is that nuclear security is not presidentially moon back's strongest interest. the rok doesn't even have weapons-usable material, that is highly-enriched uranium or separated plutonium, and for the south koreans nuclear terrorism, the nuclear terrorism it worries about is north korea. the second reason not to

underestimate the seoul summit is that few leaders are endowed with president obama's power to persuade. so the good news is that the dutch who will host the 2014 summit have a strong interest in global issues and equities in nuclear issues in the particular. so here's the qualification. however, not only was the off-mic or on-mic comment targeted or focused on by the media, but the media was completely focused elsewhere. it was on north korea. and you might have expected that. pyongyang stole the spotlight with its announcement of a planned satellite launch, but that really raises a big question. you know, the media and the public wondered why the summit wasn't about the two biggest nuclear threats that we face, north korea and iran. and this raises the question, how do you focus attention on the threats that aren't visible, the kind of threats that bob was

talking about rers us attention -- versus attention to the threats we know in and that's the primary challenge that the summits were designed to meet. so here's the problem. even in cases such as north korea and iran where they've clearly violated treaty regimes, we have problems eliminating the threats. these threats are still with us. so how much harder is it to reduce risks in a system where there are no enforceable standards of behavior? and this is exactly the case in the nuclear security regime. so i'm going to talk a little bit about the specific achievements of the summit and some missed opportunities and then, um, give you a few observations. specific achievements. the summit, it was a reinforcing mechanism. it helped speed up some activities that were underway. so you had some highly-enriched uranium removed from ukraine, quite a bit of it.

the story you don't hear about is we've been asking the you cane yangs since 19 t 5 to remove that material, so the summit both in 2010 and 2012 helped. we even got a little bit of plutonium out from sweden. so that's the one specific achievement. the other is that the summit had or created a few new activities. so you have two important agreements. one is by the u.s., belgium, france and the netherlands to eliminate highly-enriched uranium use in medical radio isotope production. for the nongeeks in the audience this is, you know, cancer therapies, you need these radioactive sources. so there's agreement to eliminate the use of that in producing these cancer treatments by 2015. there was also another agreement, very practical steps, to develop alternative fuels for research reactors. and this was something done by the u.s., south korea, france and belgium.

and the third thing was, and this is kind of an innovation from the summit, they developed joint working groups called baskets as a vehicle for forward progress. and there were some very concrete plans that emerged, particularly with respect to how countries write laws, combating illicit trafficking and transportation security. so what were the opportunities we missed? well, one, the lack of enforceable standards and continued focus on sovereignty means that everyone has a right to do very little. and so in the summit declaration, you come up, you have language which when i was in the state department we called weasel words, you know, we encourage states to consider doing certain things as appropriate and consistent with national security considerations. that kind of language. um, the second is that this summit really took the spotlight off of individual countries, and

that creates a problem. so you let specific countries off the hook. there are a lot of -- there were a lot of countries there at that summit who could have done more. russia comes to mind. pakistan, south africa. so how do we move forward? i just want to make three points here. incremental progress is good, but as bob described, the problem is big. you need leadership, buy-in and a game plan. otherwise what we can expect in 2014, the next summit, is that victory will be declared because it's defined as what was achievable. second, you need to tackle this issue of enforceable standards. this is a tough one. you might have, you might start out with more sort of peer reviews, but you need to move forward to actually, you know, when pakistan says it has excellent nuclear security, wouldn't we all like to have verification of that? [laughter] third, and here i really agree

with bob, you need to do more on plutonium in both the military and civilian sectors. if we win the battle on highly-enriched uranium, that'll be important, but it does nothing about the plutonium that is generated every day in power and research reactors. so in closing, i would like to bring your attention to something that president obama said when he was in korea at hancock university on march 26th. part of the speech was a strong support for nuclear energy. but he also said we simply can't go on accumulating huge amounts of the very material like separated plutonium that we're trying to keep away from terrorists. and then he said, we need an international commitment to unlocking the fuel cycle of the future, remarking that the u.s. is investing in the research and development of new fuel cycles so that dangerous materials can't be stolen or diverted. this conjures up a nuclear

nirvana that does not exist. experts agree there is no purely technical solution. so countries need to begin now to view fuel cycle choices whether it's to develop fast reactors like our friends in china, russia, south korea and india are doing or to engage in enrichment and reprocessing. they need to view those choices through a nuclear security lens. and ultimately, this will be a more equitable -- but i didn't say easier -- approach to reducing nuclear risks. thank you. >> good morning. i'm alex glaser from princeton university, and before i turn to the idea that bob gallucci introduced in the beginning, the

idea of a fissile zero and, you know, to propose my, you know, set of action items, let me briefly summarize where we are today with regard to fissile material stocks and production. i'm a member of the ipfm, the international panel on fissile material, which annually updates our best estimates on global fissile material stocks and production. it's partly based on government declarations but also includes our own estimates, and you should have found in your press kit our latest report which summarizes our numbers. overall, we're looking today at almost 1450 tons of highly-enriched uranium and about 500 tons of plutonium. worldwide. and combined, this is in principle enough for several thousand nuclear weapons which is a staggering amount of material, of course, and the

potential for destruction is, you know, i guess one cannot really imagine. but at the same time, securing and eliminating, say, 2,000 tons of material is technically not a big problem. i mean, it's -- you could, you know, principle put it in a small warehouse, i guess, and, you know, deal with the material. now, at the security summit in 2010 and now two weeks ago in seoul, these summits have primarily dealt with securing and consolidating civilian stocks of heu which account for about 1% of the global tock pile of fissile -- stockpile of fissile material. now, as this effort, as has been pointing out, is extremely important, but it's also extremely narrow, obviously, and we're literally missing 99% of the problem, and i think that's part of the reason for that proposal that bob gallucci made in the beginning. okay then, if it's not, you know, if that effort is not good

enough, and i hope we can kind of agree if we focus on 1% of the problem that it's probably not good enough, you know, what should be done? i think a first step, um, could be large reductions in the fissile material stocks helped by the united states, russia and is only other nuclear weapons states, stocks that are de facto access today. and to begin this process weapon states could offer and put under iaea safeguard fissile material that is no longer in weapons. in a second step, there could be a verified positive of these excess stocks, and as is already being done in the case of heu and it can be done in the case of plutonium. i think to begin this process, however, we need to develop a culture in a sense where these excess stocks are identified and declared as such. and, you know, this aspect hasn't really received much attention so far. and in a sense we have made progress with regard to

reductions in the nuclear arsenals, we have new starts quite recently, but, you know, that really is where the debate stops. we don't ask, you know, what happened, what's going to happen to these weapons and what's going to happen to this material that you recover from these weapons, and i think this will have to change. but i also think we need to go further and focus on new production on fissile material also. the p5, the weapon states of the npt, are no longer producing fissile material for weapons, but there's no collective statement to that effect. and i think the npt weapon states could make a joint announcement of a moratorium on producing more fissile materials for weapon purposes pending a fissile material cutoff treaty. india and pakistan have been mentioned before, are building up their fissile material stocks of course. they will join a cutoff when they're ready. i think. and then in the meantime we can

encourage them to join such an effort by conditioning any future civilian nuclear assistance on an end to fissile material production for weapons purposes. verification of such a ban is feasible, it's already done in nonweapons states as part of the npt, so i'm not going the focus too much on that aspect here in my remarks. but there are some odd cases, and i don't want to kind of brush them aside. some countries have heu-fueled naval reactors, most importantly the u.s. navy operating the largest fleet and uses about one to two tons of heu per year. but the excess stockpiles of u.s. heu are so large that new production wouldn't be necessary even if u.s. navy continued to use heu in the 22nd century. so there's enough material for 50, 60 or 70 years easily. so that really wouldn't prevent

a moratorium from, you know, making sense. another hard case is civil reprocessing, and it's been mentioned also. in other words, plutonium separation from spent fuel for use in power reactor fuelment about half of the global stockpile of plutonium, 250 tons, hack accumulated as a result of a few reprocessing programs. reprocessing doesn't make economic sense today, and even if nuclear energy expanded dramatically over the coming decades, there won't be any conceivable uranium shortage for many years to come. so again, i think there's a case for a moratorium. countries could store the spent fuel and still keep the option, you know, of reprocessing one day if they think now is the time. without any really opportunity cost. i mean, the spent fuel, the blew plutonium is sitting there in the spent fuel just as, well, as if you reprocessed and separated it. and yet some countries, of

course, are committed to reprocessing. there is a chance that, you know, some of them -- including, i guess, japan, the u.k. and maybe even france -- might reconsider their reprocessing programs. but the hardest cases, i think, are russia, india and china. and i think we need to engage them in a dialogue about the risks and the costs of reprocessing. but they may want to learn it in kind of the hard way. i guess we'll find out. so in conclusion, i think if fissile zero is technically feasible, i think it would strengthen the non-proliferation regime in many ways, it would support nuclear disarmament, and it's also the ultimate production against nuclear terrorism. ask that's it. thank you. and that's it, thank you. >> thank you very much. i'm joe kin choanny from

throwing share -- plowshares fund, and i'm batting clean up here. i know there's a lot of questions in the audience. let me just reinforce a couple of things people have said and tie some of this together. i think there's no question that all of us believe that the administration worked very hard on this subtle. we know -- summit. we know many of the staffers who were involved in this, and we know personally how many hours they put in and how difficult these things are. but i think we all share the belief that in the end this was an underperforming summit. it had a minimalist agenda. one of the reasons that the off-mic comment and other issues grabbed attention is because the summit itself didn't demand attention. it did not produce any breakthroughs, it didn't reach for new goals. it, as other speakers have said, it basically sped up things that were underway anyway. and when you look at the declarations, when you look at

the press releases of the achievements of the summit, they're all good things, but a lot of these are pretty small potatoes. pretty small potatoes that are all gathered up here to make it look like a more formidable banquet. the national security strategy of the united states says that the number one threat to our nation today is the threat of nuclear terrorism. but the administration is not acting as if that is true. they are not devoting nearly the resources both financial and personnel to this task, and it shows up when you come to a summit like this. we can't let this pattern continue. i know people are already working on the dutch summit in two years. they have to be told now that they've got to do better than this. otherwise these summits are in danger of becoming like the nato summits where everybody comes together, they have a great time, there's lots of speeches x

nothing really happens. everything's brought down to the minimum acceptable consensus. we can do better. we have to avoid things like the problems we had by basing the summit in seoul. i mean, one of the reasons plutonium didn't get a lot of attention, i'll be frank with you, is that south korea wants to produce plutonium. south korea wants to reprocess plutonium. this is their big thing. they have a lot of nuclear reactors, and they would like to take those reactors and start fueling them with what they call mixed-oxide fuel, it's plutonium fuel, putting plutonium in the fuel rods to, in part, burn up the plutonium, but also reprocess it from their stored fuel. we see the potential dangers of this in the disaster of talk fukushima a year ago. reactor number three had a partial load of plutonium fuel.

it raises very serious environmental concerns as that fuel, the particulates from that fuel were spread over many square kilometers in japan adding a new and unnecessary poison to the already serious radioactive debris from that, that plant. so it's understandable that the administration was under some constraints about pushing plutonium, but it's also because the administration has, frankly, a very weak internal policy on plutonium. you heard sharon, i believe, bring the quote up from the president's speech talking about new fuels of the future. these are not fuels of the future. plutonium fuel is the failed fuel of the past. but the administration is committed to building a new plutonium fuel factory in the united states, in the united states. this is a multibillion dollar facility a that's supposed to be -- that's supposed to be part of the non-proliferation

solution. in fact, it's paid for out of non-proliferation funds under the department of energy. it's supposed to take uranium, mix it with plutonium and then sell it to power companies in the united states for fuel. one big problem. no power companies in the united states want to buy it. this fuel is dangerous, expensive, requires major modification of the reactors. so you've got this plant producing fuel to nowhere that's charging ahead based on contracts and political commitments that will actually make the problem worse by developing a plutonium economy, by starting to develop a market for plutonium that will encourage people to make more plutonium to mix it in this fuel. it's exactly the wrong path to be going on. there are things that the administration could be doing and they should consider several of them. you've heard them today, i strongly support the idea of fissile zero. of not producing any more

highly-enriched uranium, any more plutonium anywhere. so when south africa left the summit and went home and announced that it was starting a new production of highly-enriched uranium to 96% for its research purposes, the united states should have had a statement regretting that decision. but as far as i know, there was silence from the united states. you've got to make -- this is a priority. if you want to stop the proliferation of this material, if you want to stop nuclear terrorism, you have to make this a priority in your relations with other countries. you can't continue to be dpomped by -- governed by state-to-state relations and trade relations and put this proliferation issue down at the bottom of your to-do list. there was a very constructive suggestion in "the new york times" two days ago by former assistant secretary of state bernie aroundson. he was -- ironson, he was suggesting how the administration could start an

initiative with brazil, the leader will be visiting this country next week. and brazil is very interest inside expanding its your uranium-enrichment program. but brazil could set a model for the year by abandoning this uranium-enrichment process. it needs encouragement from the united states to do so. it needs to feel that it's part of a global effort to stop the spread of enrichment technologies. we are flooded with enriched uranium in the world. we have plenty of enriched uranium for fuel coming out of existing facilities. we don't need brazil starting up a new facility or south korea or australia or other countries or jordan or other countries that have flirted with this idea. this should become part of the administration's part, stop not just the production of fissile material that could be used in weapons, but reduce the amount of fissile material, new fuel facilities for enriched material everywhere.

overall, as the president spoke in south korea you could see that this effort to prevent nuclear terrorism is an integral part of his plan for how to deal with nuclear threats. and the president of the united states has presented the most comprehensive, coherent program for dealing with nuclear threats of any president in u.s. history. he puts together three critical factors and moves on all of them together; prevent nuclear terrorism, prevent new states, reduce the existing stockpiles of nuclear, of nuclear weapons. you have to do all three of these together. the problem the president has had is that while he's doing these, he's doing all of these too slowly. he's shown progress since he announced this program in prague on april 5, 2009, but it's all proceeding much more slow hi than he himself -- slowly than he himself wants. the president has to find the personnel in the administration who believe as strongly in this

vision as he does and put them in charge of these missions. he's got to find the members of congress from both parties, and they are there, who believe as strongly in this mission as he does and work more closely with them, bring them to summits like seoul, bring them into the white house discussions. and he's got to work more closely with people like you. he has to work more closely with the press, both himself and his associates, to explain what the mission is, to build up public support, to overcome the number one obstacle to all this that we face today which is cynicism. what the president calls our deadly adversary, the belief that we can't do this. we can prevent new states, we can prevent nuclear terrorism, we can reduce the almost 20,000 nuclear weapons that exist in the world today. but we need public support, we need political support. the president has a vision, he needs more help accomplishing that vision. thank you.

>> thank you to the panelists. now open the floor up for questions. okay. let's not mr. cirincione down. he said there'd be questions. [laughter] come on. all right. >> um, susan -- [inaudible] with the national security news service. um, if president obama is kept in place, the bush administration officials in charge of a national nsa that's doing the mox plant at the savannah river site, they're still ongoing with that project. who politically is going to stand up and lead the way in terms of stopping the mox piewl in south carolina? fuel in south carolina? >> and your question is directed to -- >> either mr. cirincione or ambassador gallucci. i'm guessing that ambassador gallucci would rather have me

answer that question? yeah, i will. >> i actually don't know if that's really a technical question about political authorities. i'm not in a position the to answer it. but let me just say one thing, and that is that i like the way joe framed it which is to say that whoever is helping the president frame these issues, and as sharon said probably drafted those words that said let's look at this exciting future we're going to have with plutonium fuels, and as joe put flesh on that by pointing to the mox fuel fabricating facility, this is a matter in terms of authorities that might go to the president. because the political implications as you're suggest anything your question might be quite significant locally and nationally. so what i'm saying here is that this issue, i think, needs to be shaped up the way joe was suggesting and sharon was

suggesting it ought to be shaped, which is to say that this probably, certainly -- let me drop the world probably here, i'm not drafting a communique -- this certainly makes no economic sense, as joe used a metaphor it's a bridge to nowhere, well, this is a fuel fabrication facility with no utilities that want to buy the fabricated fuel. this makes no economic sense. there are political interests, certainly, that'll benefit from this economically, but it's not a good national policy. and the terms we are all talking about here, this goes exactly in the wrong direction as well as being dumb. so if you could shape this up that way, i hi the president could -- i think the president could make a decision, and then exactly what the authorities are i can't go to. but it has to be cabtured -- capture inside that way, i think. joe? >> sharon has a comment. >> yeah. i think for the record we need to remember that this plutonium disposition, this agreement that we had with russia goes back to

the clinton era. so it's not -- there's a lot of politics, certainly, about spending in south carolina on this facility, but there's also some bureaucratic inertia. this is a big construction project that bureaucrats in the department of energy support, and you might know that the u.s. nuclear industry has been languishing for decades. and so there's a big push even though areva, it's a french company that's building this, there's a lot of money going to u.s. contractors. so this is an old, old project, decades old. i don't think you can just pip it on the bush administration, but it's very emblematic of the problems you face with these big ticket items where there are entrenched interests. and i agree with bob, it has to be viewed through a ditch lens. -- different lens. >> finally, you're saying to the

president of the united states go up against the political forces in south carolina and cancel this plant. >> no. what i'm saying is who's going to stand up if president -- and i wasn't blaming the bush administration. i'm just saying the policies have continued through, and there doesn't seem to be anybody politically wanting to lead in that direction, so we're setting an example as opposed to trying to get other people to set examples. >> right. this plutonium fuel plant is a perfect example of the inertia that a new administration carries forward from decisions made by previous administrations. and we have to do two things about this. one, let's be honest that many of the decisions we face in the nuclear area don't have anything to do with national security or non-proliferation, they're about jobs and contracts. this is a jobs program. this is a big profit operation. so if you want to go up and stop that, you better have some jobs and contracts to replace it.

so this, the only person who can do that is the president of the united states. this is in his budget. this plan is going forward under his department of energy. so he has to propose a different program for south carolina, or he's never going to be able to overcome that. let me give you another example. one of the problems the president has in reducing the number of nuclear weapons isn't that the military commanders say, you know what? we need 420 intercontinental ballistic missiles. we absolutely have to have those for the national security of the united states. no, the military commanders don't say that. the senators in the five states that have those 420 long-range ballistic missiles say that. they formed a caucus, the icbm caucus. people laugh when i tell them about this. there is an icbm caucus that demands that the president not cut the number of nuclear weapons in order to preserve the jobs and contracts and bases associated with these hydrogen bombs that are stationed in montana, wyoming, north dakota

and colorado. if you want to achievement and the president's vision -- achieve the president's vision, you better have a program that's going to replace those jobs and contracts that are more beneficial to the national security of the united states and the economic health of those states. you can do that, you just need staff that will help you develop those plans and then implement them. >> i'm going to direct a question specifically to mr. cirincione. you said that the seoul summit was underperforming. what perfect storm would have to exist for the 2014 summit to be a performing summit? >> you have to have a president of the united states who believes in the mission and whether it's president obama or the republican candidate, they have to lead. this is, this is all happening because of american leadership, and, in fact, it's one of the shining examples of how important american leadership is in the world today. as secretary of state, former secretary of state madeleine albright, in this area at least

we are indispensable. we have to lead this. the second is that you have to start planning pretty much now for it. so that means the president has to start developing a plan that says, okay, what could we achieve, and then what could we achieve more than that? you know, what's the real gold ring that i want and start bringing republicans into those discussions. start making this a bipartisan effort the way nunn-lugar has been a bipartisan effort. find republican champions, reward them for working on this issue. those are my two recommendations, but others on the panel may have more. >> anyone else? have any recommendations? okay. yes. >> [inaudible] >> all right. >> do you have a question? >> [inaudible] at the russian media.

the proposals that we have heard today from you, due to your talent and experience and patriotism. as to the position of president obama in defense matters, perhaps they are questionable. as to russia, russia -- not the soviet union, russia has a long story of relations with today's iran. russia is the first country interested in not having a nuclear war. the first one. as to your suggestions, i repeat, we, i think, i agree with all of them. but there is a point you have not touched which is the collapse of the united states

aside there the damage we received would mean for the whole world, for the foreseeable future the collapse of flee.com. freedom. so after approving and being in complete agreement with what you said, i say that the safety of the world and the future of'.com in the foreseeable future is an unbeatable and overwhelming -- [inaudible] america's military power. >> now, do you have a question? >> yeah. and you insisted for all those reasons you gave, but i think american ingenuity did not stop the creation of atomic weapons -- >> again, do you have a question? >> [inaudible] >> first question, then opinion. we want a question. >> how do you --

[inaudible] all you have been saying with the maintenance of our freedom as u.s. citizens? >> thank you. anybody. going once -- >> sure. i agree with the questioner's view that the united states plays an essential role in the stability, peace and democratic transitions in the world. and i would not favor any weakening in america's capacity to play that essential role. there's nothing in what i or my colleagues have recommended that i believe would weaken america's national security, its ability to defend america's security or

to defend that of our allies or to play the essential role around the world that it has played and is playing now. >> anybody else? okay. gentleman -- >> um, my name is eric lowe, i'm from the fair observer. what i'm interested in knowing, basically, in this kind of, like, situation in washington where we talk about budget cuts and everything, so this kind of thing about, like, nuclear thing and all this is not going to get a front seat in the situation when everybody, you know, thinks that the cuts, you know, all these things just -- not talk about weapons, we're talking about, like, doing more in what you have been doing right now. do you see that there'd be more, um, difficulty in convincing you talk about, like, difficulties with the republican party or the interests in doing this, there'd be some sort of, like, solution you can think about at this

point? >> your question's directed to? >> mr. cirincione and mr. gallucci. >> let we start. something very interesting is happening in the united states currently. you have a president of the united states that has a very forward-looking, 21st century vision of u.s. national security. he's united his administration including the military leadership around this vision. in this vision nuclear weapons play an increasingly smaller role. and you hear the secretary of state, secretary of defense, head of the joint staff and the president himself say that they want to reduce the number and rolls of nuclear missions, of nuclear weapons. this is happening. we are reducing this and, in fact, we've been doing this for the last 25 years. president george h.w. bush cut the nuclear stockpile in half. president george w. bush cut the nuclear stockpile in half. president obama has cut it by 7%

so far, but we'll see how much more time he has. while you have this policy shift going on, suddenly you now are a budget shift that is marrying up with the policy shift. the defense budget is no longer growing, it is shrinking. the budget is coming down. and when the joint chiefs have to choose, they do not choose nuclear weapons. they choose the weapons they actually need for their troops to accomplish the missions they actually have against the real world threats. so you're, so you'll see -- you're seeing it now, and you'll see it in the future that the nuclear weapons part of the budget will start to come down. i believe that's going to also effect things like the plutonium fuel facility. this is just a good government businesslike approach. you can no longer -- you have less latitude to afford products that you truly don't need and are just doing for political purposes when you have to have, when you have to preserve the programs that are absolutely

essential. the programs that are absolutely essential in this agreement are things like what you heard my colleagues talking about, these uranium and plutonium disposal programs, these programs to shift production of medical isotopes from highly-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium. those are relatively low cost but have huge payoff, so that cost benefit ratio tends to favor programs like this and shifts away from big ticket items like the plutonium fuel plant. >> i agree with everything that joe said, but i'd really like you to focus on the last part particularly because we've been talking about nuclear security, and while it is organically connected to our policy with respect to nuclear weapons, that's not the central focus. that we have had. and i wouldn't want any impression here left that this

is a budget issue, the nuclear security issue, even the nuclear weapons issue is not so much of a budget issue. yes, there are going to be those who will use the environment which is where there is a serious budget issue to take on programs they do not like. for example, it may be used to knock out a social program where the social program is really not a budget issue. but you can use the budget as an excuse. in this area where we are focused these aren't, generally speaking, large budget issues at all. we're talking about matters of national policy, and then there are, of course, as we were saying in the case of mixed oxide fuel fabbriation facility, there are going to be local issues where it is a budget concern, it is a political concern. but fundamentally, i would disconnect the current budget environment from the policy prescriptions we are talking about here. these are not the tickets

associated, the costs associated with the prescriptions we're advocating are not large. >> go ahead. >> i'd just like to add one thing. stepping back from the u.s. budget tear issues -- budgetary issues, if you had, you know, fighting a war in iraq to discover weapons of mass destruction that weren't there, that was a very expensive thing. spending money to reduce these risks where you know where their nuclear material is, a whole lot cheaper than trying to find that needle in a hay stack than trying to inspect every single cargo container that comes into the u.s. or in other ports. it is, you know, i think of it as more bang for the buck. i like the way joe characterized it as, you know, low cost, huge national security payoff. so that needs to be, um, the

message really. doesn't cost a lot of money, it's the most effective way to do this compared to the other options. >> all right. we have time for two questions. the gentleman in front and then the woman in the back. >> brian bennett with "the boston globe." maybe all of you could weigh in on this quickly. iran, obviously, comes up as a primary concern for proliferation. what is less talked about in this world of transparency, and i think the packet you put out today had the nti materials index in there, is israel. and i'm curious if you, just a real quick answer, to what extent you think even as a responsible nation israel's inability, unwillingness to be more transparent about its nuclear program, how much that effects the iranian equation and/or other, you know, so-called bad actors who maybe will pursue nuclear weapons no matter what we do.

so just real quick because i think that doesn't really get talked about a lot. >> who wants to go first? professor glaser? [laughter] >> will all right. let me, as they say, say this about that. i don't believe to take on what i think is the pointy end of your question, that the iranian nuclear weapons program -- and i do belief it is a nuclear weapons program whether it ultimately produces nuclear weapons, that was its purpose -- has anything much to do with the israeli nuclear weapons program. in other words, were there no israeli nuclear weapons program, there would be an iranian program. i don't believe that iran is threatened by the israeli nuclear weapons program. i do believe that the, and to the extent i have consumed the literature on this, i believe that the israeli nuclear weapons program was developed, um, as a

deterrent but largely against the soviet union. the conventional capability and the qualitative edge, the israelis have conventional arms and the united states has supported has been what they have wanted to deal with the threat they have perceived in different ways over the decades since the creation of the israeli state. but the nuclear capability had particular reference to a possible soviet intervention that they wished to deter. i don't believe it is provocative, certainly, in a rhetorical sense, and i think one could imagine circumstances in which, indeed, we imagine it all the time in which the peace process in those -- that's usually put in capital letters -- succeeds, and the israeli-perceived need to have nuclear weapons diminishes and detier deteriorates so that they don't need them in the future. we are not there yet. this is not an apology or a

defense of the program, it is a description of, at least from my perspective, of why it looks like it does now and why it's not going away anytime soon, and it's also an assertion that at least for now it is not really the cause of the current problems in the middle east. ..

it's within a sore point but hasn't been a source of the arms race in the middle east. in the end, as part of any comprehensive middle east peace solution the recognizes the national integrity of all the countries in the middle east and attempts to overthrow any of those countries you are going to have to have disclosure of all the nuclear facilities, all the nuclear weapons and an agreement to get rid of those nuclear weapons. it is inconceivable that you would get peace in the middle east with one, two, three, four, nuclear states. i see it happening in other areas and other continents. i think the middle east is tough, tough problem but in the end israel will have to take the bombs out of its basement and put them on the

negotiating table. this is question will it be part of a comprehensive solution so the israelis themselves feel secure enough to do that and understand this is in their security interest that there not be three or four nuclear weapon states in the middle east but none. >> last question. >> i hope you would agree with me in saying that the u.s. would be able to act in the 2014 summit by being a pioneer of new alternative energies. so mr. glaser you mentioned plutonium is failed energy of the past. what would you say is the energy source that we should be focusing on and or are there other countries that are leading this effort? >> sounds like a mac arlt thursday question. >> [inaudible] >> obviously there are very strong views about the future of nuclear energy and i think fukushima kind of

highlighted this. i think the future of nuclear energy is more uncertain today than it was two or three years ago. i do think there will be some countries that will pursue nuclear energy as one of their options, including the u.s. but, as we, you know, i guess on this panel we don't think reprocessing needs to be or should be on the table. that doesn't mean, and unfortunately does mean we probably will need enrichment. some would argue this in itself is a serious proliferation. coming back to the israel-iran question, i don't think we will make a lot of progress towards nuclear weapon free middle east while iran has, you know, one or more enrichment facilities under its control. i do think the future of the fuel site and i think sharon briefly alluded to it. >> host: will have will can have facilities under a regional facilities under

multilateral control. it is not a bullet-proof solution but may be the only way how we can kind of imagine using nuclear energy in the future and in a sustainable way. i also do think, some countries are walking away from nuclear and i do think that could be, you know, that could set an important precedents. if you take the example of germany. if germany manages to phase out nuclear energy while meeting carbon targets, carbon emission targets i think it would set a very strong example and others might follow its lead. if germany fails too that would send a very strong signal. >> anyone else? that's fine. go. >> nuclear energy is special because of the risks of nuclear weapons production. unfortunately that also makes it prestigious for a lot of countries. and so i don't think that this administration and certainly the one before it

hasn't done a very good job in sort of taking the shine off of nuclear energy. it needs, it is really just another way of boiling water. so, i agree with alex, if germany can make a go of a nonnuclear future, make, you know, may sound ridiculous to you now but make solar, wind, geothermal, a whole lot of other things, renewables sexy and attractive as an advanced country, that will go far, i think, towards diminishing some of the allure of nuclear power but we also have to do our own job and not make it such a special thing that we confer on our good allies and try to keep away from our not so good allies. >> only comment and i don't think it cuts contradicts or cuts across either of my colleagues that this panel has been about security.

this was not a panel aimed at, against nuclear energy. i mean no one came up here to speak against nuclear energy. we came to talk about the nuclear security issue. so if it, he is obviously correct you wouldn't eliminate the nuclear security issue or nuclear proliferation issue or nuclear weapons issue if there wasn't a link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons but if you didn't have a nuclear energy, then nuclear programs would unambiguously would be connected with nuclear weapons. that would be bring a certain clarity to that. that is not actually what we're about. we're saying okay, we're going to have nuclear energy. how can we do it in a way that doesn't threaten the existence of humanity? that's where we're coming from rather than an argument against or for any particular energy mix. >> all right. that's the last word.

i would like to thank our panelists for their informative and enlightening presentations. i would like to thank the audience today for joining us. with that, this proceeding is over. thank you. >> the latest u.s. unemployment figures were released this morning showing a drop in unemployment to 8.2% but with fewer new jobs added than expected according to the associated press. the chair of the economic council of advisors released statement saying there is more work to be done but the report shows the economy is

continuing to recover. the drop in unemployment rate is mainly due to fewer people looking to work. which labor secretary hilda solis addressed the fact that some americans are still leaving the labor force shows we can not rest on our laurels that the u.s. must invest in community colleges and job training programs. that news from the associated press. you can find a link to the employment report on our website, c-span.org. with the u.s. senate on break this week and next we're featuring "book tv" in prime time here on c-span2. the book festival starting at 8:00 eastern. the story of the u.s. army's first blind active duty officer. then at 8:50, this burning land. lessons from the front lines of the transformed israeli-palestinian conflict. at 9:40, empire of the summer moon. the rise and fall of the comanchees, the most powerful indian tribe in american history.

"book tv" in prime time all this week and next here on c-span2. >> i've always said that some of these guys, i don't know you but you may be the same type have a little bit of a reverse personality. when things are really, really good they can be unmanageable. [laughter] and when things are really, really bad, they're calm. i mean calm. really amazing. you watch, i mean i'm not saying they don't feel fear. they do. they tell you they don't, they're lying. i've seen tyler really scared. but they manage it and they channel it and when they have to work, they just concentrate and they're very, very calm. you get back and got to wait two days for a helicopter and they're bouncing off the inside of the tent and going nuts because it's calm. but i think that when

they're out there, in the middle of it, and i work side by side with photographers. i don't cover the capitols and i don't cover the -- i work from the field. when you're out there it is so busy and can be so intense in its own way it is very self-organizing and you're able to kind of leave it behind because you're not in those sorts of situations when you're home. you're home and get stuck in traffic and, you know, you're just a guy stuck in traffic. and it's not so bad. >> after that, see a tribute to maryland senator barbara mikulski. last month she became the longest serving female member of congress in u.s. history. >> deep in my heart i'm still that congresswoman from the third congressional district. i'm still a fighter and i'm still a reformer. i'm still that young girl in that blue jumper who went to ind with the mayor's daughter and i'm still that person who wants to light one little candle and curse the darkness. i will continue to work with

all of you in this room. each and everyone are here because you make a difference. let's continue to work together and make change and may the force be with us. [cheers and applause] >> and then a tribute to two former senators howard baker and bob dole as they're honored by the bipartisan policy center for their combined 100 years of public service. >> it was a great honor and a genuine privilege to serve with each of you. to learn from each of you. i know you wished i learned more, bob, but to learn from each of you. and quite frankly, just simply to know you both. >> reporting on war and conflict. and trib beauties to current senator barbara mikulski and former senators howard baker and bob dole. it is all tonight starting 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> oil and gas price analysts say high gas prices could jeopardize the economic recovery. they testified before a democratic steering committee on wednesday in washington. highlight the u.s. oil and gas markets vulnerabilities to wall street speculation. this is an hour and a half.

>> good afternoon, everyone. pleased to call to order this important meeting of the steering and policy committee with appreciation to our chair, congresswoman rosa delauro of connecticut, who will preside over today's presentations. i'm also pleased to be joined by the chair of our caucus, congressman john larson of connecticut and the ranking member on the natural resources committee, congressman ed markey, former chair of the energy security select committee. also pleased to be joined by congressman sicilin of rhode island. congresswoman donna edwards of maryland. our chairman sandy levin of the ways and means committee and congressman bobbi scott of virginia and also from virginia, mr. moran. when i think about today's proceedings i, one title in my mind i give it is the agony and the ecstasy.

the agony of our consumers for the price at the pump and what that means to them especially people who are having trouble making ends meet and how the high cost at the pump is really an obstacle to them. it is not just a luxury. it is something they must do and they have to the make ends meet. the agony is for them. the ecstasy is for big oil. they raked in a profit, a record profit of $137 billion in profits last year. that's $261,000 a minute. a minute. they're on track for another year of astronomical profits. experts have been clear. wall street speculators are artificially driving up the price at the pump and causing pain to millions of american consumers. we'll hear more about that from our expert witnesses and from our colleagues. i thank my colleagues for

joining us. appreciate the presence of professor greenberg and mr. gilford and yield to the distinguished chairwoman of the steering committee. >> thank you, madam leader, and i want to as well come everyone here today. it's a privilege to do that and i thank you madam leader, for calling the hearing and welcome to my colleagues on the panel this afternoon. high oil prices as the leader pointed out affect every aspect of americans lives, not just the cost of traveling but heating homes, food and other purchases. there are many reasons for fluctuation in the price of oil. on some of these such as tension and uncertainty in the middle east, the administration is moving forward by working with the international community. as a result, last week saudi arabia announced that they would act to lower oil prices. that being said, the cost of gas is also irrefutably affected by rampant speculation in the oil markets and that is something that we can and should do more about. last year at the peak of the last oil price bubble

goldman sachs estimated that speculators increased crude prices by around 20% and the price of gas by 56 cents per gallon. even the head of exxonmobil conceded that the price of oil should have been in, and i quote, the 60 to $70 range when instead it hovered at $100 a barrel. it has been estimated that speculators now make up as much as 70 to 80% of the oil market. so we are holding this hearing to examine how we can do a better job of curbing excessive speculation in the oil market. dodd-frank legislation gave the cftc broad new authorities to investigate, manipulation in the market and last year the commodities trade commission charged five oil speculators with manipulating the crude prices in 2008, netting them more than $50 million, even as oil prices climbed toward record highs but this house

republican majority has tried to gut the cftc at every turn. the agricultural appropriations bill last year where the funding for the commodities future trading commission is determined provided only $172 million in funding. about 44% below the president's request, meaning that it is about 159 less cops on the beat. we fought back. we got that up to 205 million in the final 2012 budget but it is still not enough for the cftc to perform as it should. their request was for $308 million. we are here to represent american consumers, not oil speculators. we need to ensure that the cftc has the resources it needs to do its job and it's doing it and we should be strengthening its ability to combat rampant speculation, not working to undermine it. i have introduced legislation with congressman boswell and welch to provide

the cftc with a reliable source of funding. the wall street accountability through sustainable funding act. this will bring the cftc in line with other financial regulators. like ferc, the sec, fdic and authorize the collection of user fees to offset the cost of their operations. in order to decrease prices immediately i and several of my colleagues have asked the president to release some oil from the strategic petroleum reserve. right now the petroleum reserve holds 696 million barrels and it is filled to more than 95% of its capacity. and as president on both sides of the aisle who can attest even releasing a small amount of oil from the reserve could have a huge impact on the price of gas and help to discourage speculation. today, i hope we can discuss the best ways to continue moving forward against excessive speculation. last month president obama reconstituted the oil and gas price working group to

investigate manipulation in the oil and gas markets. what should this working group be doing to make a difference and do the current market conditions warrant the use of the cftc's emergency authority to set margins and position limits? the cftc has had this authority from the beginning of its existence but has refrained from getting involved since 1980. those questions and others i know our panel is going to address. thank you for coming and we look forward to our discussion today. with that let me yield time to my colleague from massachusetts, mr. markey. >> thank you so much chairwoman delauro. thank you for holding this. thank you, leader pelosi, for conducting this very important hearing at this time. thank you chairman larson, very much for convening this. i think we're at a very important moment in the

united states's relationship with the oil marketplace. right now the national average for the price of gasoline stand at $3.93 a gallon nationwide. within the next week the average american driver could be staring through the windshield at $4 a gallon. of course the republicans would like you to think that this is all president obama's fault and deflect any blame away from the real culprits. they are wrong. the current spike in gas prices is not about obama. it's about opec, oil companies and wall street speculators. we could take four steps right now that could address this situation. one, deploy oil from the strategic petroleum reserve as rosa delauro said. last week when the french government said international talks with the united states and others were proceeding to deploy

the reserves oil dipped by several dollars just on the mere threat of using this weapon against speculators. the strategic petroleum reserve is to wall street speculators what kryptonite is to superman and republicans oppose this uniformly. they believe that the oil market is a free market. it is not. two, we need to stop wall street speculators from their yearly gains that turn the oil market into a crude oil casino. last year house republicans tried to slash the budget for the commodities futures trading commission, the agency that serves as the cop on the wall street oil speculation beat and the republican majority has moved legislation intended to delay the reforms by the democratic congress that would diminish the power of wall street trading firms to manipulate the market. wall street's lobbyists have

even gone so far as to sue to block these reforms. we should be fully arming the wall street cops and ensure that they can crack down on the gasoline gamblers in the marketplace, the republicans are wrong. three, we should end the needless exploit -- exportation of american energy resources. last year america's number one export of any kind was our fuel. more than one billion barrels of our gasoline, diesel and other fuels worth more than $100 billion were sent overseas to locations like china, morocco and singapore with rush holt and congressman bill owens from new york, i have introduced legislation that would stop the export of america's oil and fuel produced from public land. when american families are facing $4 gasoline, we should not be allowing big oil to export america's fuel

that was drilled for here and republicans oppose this amendment almost unanimously. and four, we must end the tax breaks for oil companies. republicans want to raise taxes on the wind industry but they have been protecting tax subsidies for the most profitable oil companies in the world. american taxpayers should not be asked to give oil companies 100-year-old subsidies so they can sell us oil at more than $100 a barrel and then make more than $100 billion in annual profits. we should be pushing a long-term plan that moves us away from foreign oil and insulates from the price shocks of an oil market that is controlled by opec. if we take these four steps, we will stop the speculators from manipulating the oil market, we will rein in the fuel exporters who are sending our resources to china and we will tell the opec dictators that we don't need their oil anymore than we need their sand. thank you, chairman delauro, for this wonderful hearing.

>> i want to thank you, mr. markey. with that let me introduce our colleague, mr. larson to introduce one of our guests this morning. good afternoon. >> thank you, chairwoman delauro, for convening us here today. i want to commend our leader nancy pelosi, for recognizing what americans have all across this country the problems that they're encountering at the pump and frankly in home heating oil and air-conditioning as we approach the summer. it is my great honor to be able to introduce gene gilford today. gene gilford is the president of the independent connecticut petroleum association, an education foundation. i've had the opportunity to work with gene over the years and a number of his dealers who understand implicitly that the laws of supply and demand have been suspended when it comes to

oil speculation and they have been at the forefront of helping us shape legislation for both congresswoman delauro and myself and i am proud to be able to introduce him here today. gene has an extensive background and i think the members will find this most interesting that gene was appointed by president reagan and served both in the commerce department. is very familiar with import and export of our commodities and also served in the energy department as well. so as first, first-hand understanding of both the regulation that's needed and also of our market place system. but most importantly what he understands is the need of consumers, and at a recent press conference with chris murphy and myself laid out for the public what i think is the best case in terms of the need for us to have ongoing regulation and

promotion of the cftc and the dodd-frank bill. with that my proud opportunity to introduce gene gilford. >> thank you, mr. larson. my pleasure to introduce to you our other panelist, michael greenberger, who is currently professor at the center of health and homeland security at the university of maryland law school. michael has worn many hats over the years from acting as a principle deputy associate attorney general at the justice department to technical advisor to the u.n. commission of experts on reforms of the international financial system. he also previously served as director of the trading and markets division at the commodities futures trading commission and served on the steering committee of the president's working group on financial markets. and is a member of the international organization of security commissions hedge funds task force. thank you, michael, for being here, as well as mr. gilford. michael, we'll start with

your testimony. >> thank you very much. members of the committee, leader pelosi -- >> microphone. >> and, chairwoman, rosa delauro for convening this hearing. i've worked with almost everybody in this hearing and you've always been great friends of consumers and you have always lended an ear to those of us who don't have the clout of the big wall street lobbyists. many say there is no quick fix for this. i believe there is a quick fix for this and i agree with many of the policy proposals that have been enunsy eighted but i would prioritize three of them. first let me say i read "the financial times" which surveys all the world markets and within an opinion column the thesis was, the united states is back. the united states is back leading the world economy. europe is on its back.

japan has been on its back. china is decelerating. our policies which are guided by the obama administration and you in congress have created the embers that are sparking a recovery. the one thing that will damage this recovery is the ever-accelerating gasoline prices. they are a burden in a micro sense in that people simply do not have the money to pay for four and maybe soon $5 a gallon gasoline. it is a hardship to virtually every american. but more important in a macro sense is, this will break the back of the recovery. the president has said that. many of you have said that. with everything going so well for us, why can't we fix this problem? many would like you to believe, and you've said this, this is a supply demand problem but i have

cited in my testimony 60 experts from around the world who say, supply demand is in equalibrium. the saudi king just said he would increase oil production by 25% to make up for any boycott of the iranian oil product or interference with the straits of hormuz. the president has talked about releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve but the, as was said in the testimony, the chairman of exxonmobil has said market fundamentals mean that gas, oil prices should be at 60 to $70. they're now approaching 105. they have been up to 110. why is this happening if there is no supply demand problem? i would say, do not believe those who tell you in the face of the experts, in the face of the saudi king, in the face of the chairman of exxonmobil, that there's a supply demand problem. what is the problem? it is gambling by

wall street on the price of oil? it is similar to the gambling wall street did whether or not people would pay their subprime mortgages in the mortgage meltdown. what they couldn't pay off their bets and all of us were forced, as taxpayers, to pay trillions of dollars to make up for wall street's bets that the subprime market would be successful. now they are betting on the upward direction of the price of oil. and again, 60 experts in my testimony have said, from nouriel roubini who famously predicted the meltdown, iranian oil exports, stanford, princeton, mit, london school of economics, it is excessive speculation which is a fancy word for saying that gamblers wearing wall street suits have taken these markets over and are

controlling the price and create investment vehicles that are designed to push the price of oil up. by gambling, by placing a bet, you do not increase oil production. you do not create market liquidity. it's just like saying, does las vegas create national economic well-being? we have a las vegas exponentially on steroids making bets on the upward direction of oil. now dodd-frank made, with your leadership, made a valiant attempt to deal with this, but we were too kind in the way we dealt with it in dodd-frank because we delegated out the responsibility to the administrative process which is overwhelmed with under the radar screen, wall street, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, millions of dollars of lobbying. i have three recommendations

for congress and let me say that under your leadership, there have been bills that have passed in this direction. leader pelosi, when you were the speaker you and congresswoman delauro, congresswoman larson, mr. peterson, on june 26th introduced a bill to stop speculation. june 26th, 2008. in the morning it passed the house 402-19 that night. when oil goes over $4 nationwide, this will be a bipartisan issue and it must be explained that this is not a supply problem. the president just said last week, we can constrain the iranians oil production because, as he has said, as the saudis have said, as exxonmobil has said, supply is plentityful. we're a net exporter of oil. it is the gambling that must be stopped. here are my three things. the investment vehicles that

have the fancy names of commodity index swaps and synthetic exchanges traded funds, much like the naked credit default swaps that led to the meltdown that wall street propagated as investments but were really bets on whether subprime mortgages were paid off, are a half trillion dollars of investments sending signals to the market, false signals, that there is a supply problem. and anybody who knows these markets and is objective says that those signals are damaging the supply fundamentals in this, in this market. that gambling must be stopped. it will not have anything to do with production. none of that money goes to production. none of it goes to liquidity. it's all casino gambling, and nothing productive. second, the president now

has twice, wisely, said, and correctly said, there that it is not a supply demand problem but there are manipulations in the markets by big financial traders, where they're conspiring to drive the price of oil up. he has twice asked the justice department to convene a proscutorial investigation. now he did that first on april 21st, 2011. oil was at 110. of after he made that announcement, within six months, it was at 75. but nothing happened. now it is back at 110 again. now the president has asked for this task force. i think all of us, and i know congressman van hollen is gathering a letter, all of us have to work with the department of justice who is leading this task force, to explain to them that manipulation of the oil markets is not only crippling the american

consumer, but it threatens the recovery, and if we go back into recession, there is going to be no safety net. there is going to be no tarp the next time. the american people don't have the stomach for bailing out banks. and if we don't have a safety net, that means not a recession, but a depression. so i think we all have to explain to the attorney general, that this has got to be his number one investigative process. where is the fbi? where are the interviews of market participants? where are the subpoenas? president obama has focused on this. let's get these guys going. and i assure you, because the president's threat in april 2011 drove the price down almost $40, if there is a real investigation, just the appearance of it, will cause these cockroaches to scatter because the light will be turned on. they don't want to go to jail. and if they think they're

not going to go to jail, they are going to keep damaging the american economy. finally you said this, this may be the hardest thing to do but the american public must understand that the commodities futures trading commission, probably few of them know what that is, is the cop on the beat that can stop this problem. under the leadership of chairman gensler, appointed by president obama, they have done an amazing job but they are completely underfunded. for a multitrillion dollar market they have 700 employees. the president asked for another 400 employees. another $100 million. $100 million, to stop the economy spending into a depression. that's a very small amount of money. the cftc has to be fully funded. if they're fully funded, we don't need interagency task

forces. they would have the resources to bring these manipulation cases. they are bringing manipulation cases but they don't have the fbi. they don't have the necessary investigative power. we need to fund that agency. thank you. >> thank you very much, professor greenberger. mr. gilford? >> good afternoon. leader pelosi, congressman larson, congresswoman delauro, my two close friend from connecticut, thank you for being here and members of the democratic policy and steering committee. i am the man who came from connecticut to say about professor greenberger, agree. let me briefly take you through what i believe an important part of the history we've been going through because it was in 2004 that we first came and visited congressman larson and asked if he would be willing to join with his colleagues in initiating government accountability

authorities of the cftc and find out what is going on in commodity markets because it was by then we were becoming very unsettled and concerned about what was going on in those markets volatility and price increases. it was two years later, congressman larson we got the report back we think this there is something going on and we can't really tell you because the law as blinded agencies responsible for enforcement of these laws. in 2008, leader pelosi, we came very close in closing the enron loophole being able to move this issue a little further down the road. and you remember 2008 very well because it was an experience that we certainly won't forget because it was at that time that the secretary of the treasury and the chairman of the federal reserve came to you and said, if you don't pass a piece of legislation in a couple of days, the american economy is going to go over the edge. and it was on the basis of the reason why that was the case, wall street's reckless

and irresponsible behavior that led to that point, that we ended up moving the policy a little further down the road with dodd-frank. now where we are today with respect to connecting the dots between wall street, and the gas pump, is for us, very clear and i would like to illustrate that to you in the material that i've handed out to you. the wall street nymex gasoline contract has increased 86 cents a gallon in the last 90 days. since mid-december, 86 cents more per gallon means that our state of connecticut pace $3.6 million more per day every day for gasoline. that's $25 million a week that the citizens of connecticut pay more for gasoline today than they did in the middle of december. now to put that into context for the charts that we provided to you, and now we're up to 90, now we're up to 92 cents by virtue of the fact that we had a 6.6 cent

increase just the other night after i prepared this for delivery here today. at 11 billion gallons a month that americans consume in gasoline, americans today are paying $10 billion, $10 billion more for gasoline than they were paying in the middle of december. so in the context of professor greenberger's statements with regard to how much we should be arguing funding an agency of the federal government for the purpose of overseeing these markets, if it is costing the american consumer this amount of money, just within the scope of 90 days, 90 days, it's extraordinary. now what could possibly have happened in the last 90 days to have caused this problem? did hurricanes go through the gulf of mexico? was there a massive shutdown of refineries around the world? it israel attack iran?

in the absence of anything that anyone can point to a tax on the american public of $10 billion per month has been enacted as a result of what has gone on wall street just since the middle of december. with due respect to anyone who chooses to blame this all on india and china, we didn't just discover india and china the week before christmas. but that's what has happened just since the middle of december. our contention is that financial industry speculators have overtaken the commodity markets. 10 years ago actual producers and users of energy and agricultural commodities made up 70 to 80% of the markets. with only 20 to 30% of the markets made up of by speculators. now this has flipped and 70 to 80% of the commodity markets are controlled by financial industry speculators and only 20 to 30% of these markets are actual, legitimate hedgers of purchases of energy and

agricultural commodities. six years ago wall street brought out commodity index fund, resulting in upwards of $400 billion of strictly speculative investments in commodity markets and that is contributing to the rise in food and energy prices. and if i could, i would like to read you some of the promotional material for wall street for these commodity index funds. quote, when trading futures you never actually buy or sell anything tangible. you are just contracting to do so at a future date. you are merely taking a buying or selling position as a speculator, expecting to profit from rising or falling prices. you have no intention of making or taking delivery of the commodity you are trading. let me repeat that. you have, this comes from the people who sell these things. you have no intention of making or taking delivery of the commodity you are trading. your only goal is to buy low

and sell high or vice versa. before the contract expires you will need to relief your contractual obligation where we get into the business of rolling contracts month to month, to take or make delivery by offsetting your initial position. the commodity markets are overseen by the cftc as you all know and you have stated here today who put in place limits and regulations shortly after the first of the year to restrain strictly financial speculation in these markets. the financial services industry as you know in the 8th of december has filed suit against the cftc in federal court saying that the these massive price increases, they don't belief, that these rules are necessary or appropriate. to the americans who are paying $10 billion a month more for gasoline, tell them, these rules are not necessary.

the financial services industry nearly drove america into another great depression in 2008 only now which we're beginning to emerge. congress passed the dodd-frank law to regulate the reckless and irresponsible behavior of wall street and that law and all agencies responsible for implementing that law need to be strongly supported and the law needs to be allowed to work for the american people especially before it is tinkered with any further. in the two charts i provided which like to briefly cover because there are some excuses going around that this the increase in gasoline prices is all due to crude oil. if you look at the price of crude oil between mid-december and the middle of march it went from $94 a barrel to 106. $12 a barrel increase. 42 gallons in a barrel. so for every dollar increase in a barrel that yields approximatelily two cents a gallon increase in refined products. 12 bucks, 24 cents. flip over to the next chart and you will see what happened between the middle

of december and march 28th. went from 24 to 3.40 in over 90 days. if the increase in price added 2 cents a gallon from gasoline where did the other 68 cents a gallon come from? what caused the other 68 cents a gallon to be added to the cost of gasoline on the new york mercantile exchange contract? that is the contract. it has gone up every single day steadily since the middle of december. not before december, but since the middle of december. personally with regard to the 28 commodities that are covered by the commodities future trading commission limits rule, we think it is

not only time to give consideration making sure that those rules go into effect but we also think that the energy and agricultural commodities are so important to the people of this country that they should be become 100% deliverable and that is to say we don't find any reason why this game of wall street placing bets on the movements of these products, you have no intention of making or taking delivery of the commodity you are trading, if you have no intention of taking or making delivery of the commodity you are trading, you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the market because what we're talking about here is the food that americans buy and the energy that we rely on to run our economy. as others have said today, we strongly support adequate funding for the commodities futures trading commission and reject the proposals to cut their funding which only gut the agency's ability to enforce these laws.

we support the efforts of the house agricultural committee to initiate hearings immediately on the role of excessive wall street speculation is having on gasoline and energy and food prices. remember the 28 commodities covered by the position limits rule is energy and food. and we also further support the revitalizing the department of justice task force on speculation that was started on july of 2011. and something that the department of justice is indicating the department of justice going to begin doing immediately. i share professor greenberger's sentments that if you shine light on behavior of something its behavior is likely to change. there is no reason not to begin that today. i thank you very much for your time and attention and the opportunity to be here and answer any questions you may have. >> thank you both very, very much for really compelling testimony and, the real clarity of thought and candor. we have much appreciative of this. with that let me recognize the ranking member of the ways and means committee,

mr. levin. i will mention to my colleagues that we're going to hold firm to a five-minute rule here in order to get everybody in to be able to ask their questions of our panelists here today. >> thank you. i think the fact that many of us are here is an indication that we may not be in session but, this con should really be so and, the republicans, they support a free market even when it's rigged and so we're here to try to probe this. so, let me just ask you because you make such a compelling case as to how much speculation is. i think both of you said essentially in terms of these derivatives, they may be 80% speculation and 20%

response to a real need. let me just ask you, assuming that's true and there is much evidence there is, how, if we ran the show and i wish we did, how would we pass legislation that would get at the speculation, but, permit, where there was an effort to hedge against an increase and take control of that product? that's the line you draw? how would we do this realistically? because i think though there may be some deaf ears here, we need to shout loudly and shout persuasively. so, design a proposal that would get at this. >> [inaudible]. -- new deal congress which

they passed to protect farmers from excessive speculation. and essentially the design is not to, the critical word is excessive speculation, not speculation. in fact, speculation is needed for the farmer, for the petroleum producer, to create liquid markets where contracts can be quickly traded but a smooth, functioning market is 70% commercial, 30% speculative. the markets now are 80% speculative, 20% commercial. the commercials don't want to be in this market anymore because it is so volatile. they have to place margin. they can't control the price of margin because the contract shoots up and their life savings may go in the margin. so this is all speculation. now, the two vehicles that many agree, and i provided all the studies on this, that the speculators used that are the quickest,

dirtiest way to get into this market are the commodity index swap fund and the synthetic exchange traded funds. don't worry about the fast onsy title. -- fancy title. what does that mean? you walk into your bank and say, i don't want to buy this stuff. i don't even know what a barrel of crude oil looks like but your analysts have advised me that the price is going to go up so here's my money and i want to get dollar for dollar everything out of the upward price. and those wall street operations are like bookies. they have to the hedge their exposure just like a bookie lays off bets when it gets too one-sided. what do they do? they go into the real futures market where the farmer and the baker are trying to hedge prices and they buy long oil contracts.

so on paper they have contracts that are 33 times the size of the world's supply of oil. that sends a signal out that can not be defeated that there's a supply problem when there isn't. so you can cut this snake off at its head by saying, no more betting on these markets. these aren't commercials making these bets. unfortunately i hate to tell you this, they're pension funds. private equity companies. hedge funds. banks. all they're doing is like walking into a bookie's shop and saying, i don't want to own this stuff. i just want to bet, and by the way you can only bet that the price will go up. you can't bet that it will go down. >> the losers of that bet are the american people? >> the loser and they are con tenuously told it is a

supply demand problem when the people responsible for the oil markets, exxonmobil, the ceo says 60 to $70 a barrel. it is 105, 110 now. the saudi king says, you're worried about the blocking the straits of hormuz? we'll make a barrel for barrel everything that will be lost. by the way, in 1973 when opec cut off the west from all its oil, worse than the blockage of the straits of hormuz, there was a fraction of the volatility we're seeing today. i can give you charts to show that. in april of 2011 it was the arab spring. libya with 2% production of oil is causing this spike and saudis said again, we'll make up the 2%. president said this is not supply demand. this is market manipulation and he was right. so, and the final thing i would say is, what are you stopping here?

are you stopping money from going into production? are you stopping money from people creating jobs? unless you think a casino, which comes to us in the names like goldman sachs, and morgan stanley, are job creators. no, you're stopping betting. if we're wrong about this, if everything we're telling you is a mistake, what will we have done if we stop the betting? we will have closed a couple of casinos. believe me, every time there has been a threat, 2008, you guys passed bill, 288-133 to stop betting. the oil price went from 147 to 30 in six months. is that a supply demand responsibility? and then, when people said, oh, we've got the price down to 30, nothing happened, it shot back up to 75. by the spring of 2009. then you guys said we'll

pass dodd-frank. when dodd-frank appears not to be working because of wall street lobbying and wall street lawsuits, the price of oil is back up again. stop the gambling. i can tell you will bring the price of oil down substantially and all your constituents, who are in heart-breaking situations, whether it is gasoline, heating oil or any derivative of crude oil will find comfort and we will keep the recovery going and make the united states what it is for the first time in decades, a leader in world economic growth. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. let me sklt my colleagues, mr. sicilini from rhode island, next question. >> thank you, madam chairman for convening meeting and ma'am leader. this issue of great importance in my state. rhode island has second highest unemployment rate in

the country and families are suffering with the increase in gas price. to get to work, if they have work, to run their small business, to get their kids to school and a whole host of other issues. when you hear your testimony today and what we've seen so much in the research it is so much of this is driven by what sound dangerously reminiscent of what we heard or warned about in the mortgage derivative market and the way it brought our housing market to brink of collapse and hurt so many families. the idea this is repeating itself with the same speculators on wall street is really, really infuriating. thank you for your testimony. my can he is a question -- question is very practical one. there is piece of legislation introduced on the senate side by senator bernie sanders and senator klobuchar and senator franken i really looked at that seems to immediately require the cftc within 14 days to set about both identifying the magnitude of the speculation and also to

set about addressing it immediately. and i'm wondering whether that approach makes sense and whether the ratios that you're speaking about that are flipped upside down can be corrected and what are the obstacles to that happening if that legislation were enacted by the congress of the united >> let me say that legislation is the legislation you passed in 2008 when the oil went to record price of 147 which forced the cftc to declare an emergency in the market and hoping that they would employment limit speculation both by flat lilts on speculation and by increasing margin speculators have to play. so i think that's a good idea. but if you guys want to kill the beast, if you want to help your constituents, don't delegate this out to a an opaque administrative process where wall streeters

are meeting, eating meating. by the way, the cftc will meet with anybody but the consumers don't have the money to go down there 20 four hours a day, seven days a week and they don't have the money to fight these things in court where the wall streeters are highering the fanciest law firms, the biggest appellate firms and i can tell you and gene guilford can tell you, we can not match that money dollar for dollar. i say to you don't ask the cftc to do this. they're the very age is agency you guys know don't have the funding for this. i would do it yourself. you can pass legislation banning commodity index swaps in exchange traded fund and you will remove $500 trillion from the market and the, and they will come to you the banks will come to you, say, oh, you're going to limit production. you're going to limit

liquidity. the market is overrun withla liquidity. we have 80% of it is speculation. what you will be doing is stopping gambling, pure and simple. money only creating homes in the hamptons and yachts in the hamptons. your constituents should know that every time they break their heart by buying $4 and maybe soon $5 gasoline, that money isn't going into production. it's going to home building in the hamptons and yacht-building in the hamptons. it is not a constructive, economic thing. don't stop anywhere but go to the juggler and frankly, i will tell you something. that bill gets introduced, what is it going to say to the speculators? hey, i will have to get out of this market. i will get out before there is a panic and everybody is getting out. i'm going to unwind now. that's what happened in 2008. you guys pas